End of Semester Review- Spring 2014 (It's late.)

Each semester I blog about my major learnings. My spring classes ended in May.  It's August now, and I’m finally getting around to my post. Blame it on senor-itis.

In the spring, I had a full schedule: Worship, Methodist Polity and History, Social Justice and Scripture, and the second half of internship at Solomon's Porch.  While these classes seem really disconnected, I had three really interesting integrations occur in me.

Low and High

I spent a lot of time thinking about “low” and “high.”  In the religion world, we use these words in cool ways.

For example, “low Christology” emphasizes Jesus’ humanness/ministry first and then moves to the mystery of incarnation and divinity.  “High Christology,” on the other hand, emphasizes Christ’s divinity first and then moves to his humanness and ministry.

And another example, “high liturgy” or “high church” describes worship that is highly scripted and prescribed, often formal in nature.  “Non-liturgical” or “low church” describes worship that is spontaneous, less scripted, and less formal.

One day during my UMC Polity class, my mind started to wander, and I started to wonder….  Can we apply this “low” and “high” language to ecclesiology?

First, what’s ecclesiology?  Well, it’s my favorite topic in seminary!  But beyond that, here’s a definition:

“Ecclesiology, in Christian theology, is the study of doctrine pertaining to the Church itself as a community or organic entity, and of how the Church understands itself—that is, its role in salvation, its origin, its relationship to the historical Christ, its discipline, its destiny, and its leadership. Ecclesiology is, therefore, the study of the church as a thing in itself, and of the church's self-understanding of its mission and role.”  -New World Encyclopedia

In other words, ecclesiology answers these types of questions:  What is the church?  What is the church supposed to be or do?  How is the church to function?

It’s no surprise I started to wonder if one can have a “low” or “high” ecclesiology during my polity class.  Polity is, of course, the organization and governing system of any civil institution (in this case, the church).

So, if we applied “low” and “high” to ecclesiology, this is what it would look like:

“Low ecclesiology” would emphasize individual relationships within the community of faith, with just enough structure/organization to support and enhance those relationships.  A low ecclesiological church would see itself as a group of people in relationship with each other as they live Jesus’ love to the world.  Less emphasis is placed on governance and the sustainability of the organization as an entity itself.  Low ecclesiological churches wouldn’t take themselves too seriously as an institution—they would simply consider themselves a band of people who’ve come together to share in Christ’s mission for the season they are together.

“High ecclesiology” would emphasize the institutional nature of the church.  Relationships between people in the church would be lived out within the boundaries of the institution.  Rules for governance would specify how decisions are made and the roles people play, which provides direction on how people interact with each other.  High ecclesiological churches focus on the potential of the organization as something greater than the sum of the individuals that make it up (Christ’s body).  A high ecclesiological church would take serious its ability to sustain itself into the future and its success as an institution which can act on behalf of people.

Does this low and high language work?  Maybe.  If you’re curious…. I have low-medium Christology, low liturgical style, and low ecclesiology.  You probably aren’t surprised.

Constructive Ecclesiology

At my seminary, the approach to theology is called “constructive theology.”  Through the educational process, they make you question all your embedded beliefs and throw off everything.  This is called deconstruction.  And then, you rebuild your beliefs, hoping to answer big questions without any holes or inconsistencies.  This is called reconstruction.

This last semester, my internship small group started to use the words “constructive ecclesiology,” replacing theology with ecclesiology.  We realized this:

Most seminarians expect they will have to question their theology—the nature of God, good, evil, salvation, atonement, etc.  But most seminarians, or professors for that matter, don't look at ecclesiology the same way.  We assume that our current church systems and polity are fine and don’t need to be deconstructed and reconstructed.  As seminarians, we think we are going to fit comfortably into our system, as if our understanding of ‘the church’ will match the denomination’s understanding of ‘the church.’

But more and more of us in seminary are toying around with constructive ecclesiology.  We aren’t fitting into the church as it is.  We actually want to deconstruct the church and rethink it.  Our views of what the church is or should be are being challenged.  And this is causing us to construct a new view of the church in the world.  This has big implications for our current denominations:  What is the church building for?  What does membership mean?  Is membership necessary?  What is a seminary education for?  Who should be leading churches?  What’s the role of a pastor?  Who should get to decide doctrine?  If the system is connectional, what is the connection?  What is the benefit?  Where should the power lie—at the congregational level, conference level, world level?  Etc., etc., etc.…..    

Renewal Movements

Church renewal movements are when people of a church are motivated to reexamine the vision and mission of their church.  They feel compelled to ask, “What are we called to right now in this context?”  An attempt is made to become something different… reNEWal.  (This is not just about worship style.... repeat, this is not just about worship style.)

In my mind, renewal of vision and mission should lead to new polity, but often times the old polity becomes a road block to renewal.   In some ways, existing churches and pastors are living with the organization of our previous generation because the previous generation was successful in their context.  An assumption is made that this same organization will be successful for future generations, so the organizational structure sticks, gets solidified, set in stone as “the way we are supposed to operate.”  But life goes on; things change culturally.

In order to renew, a church will need to reorganize and do polity and governance differently.  But it’s hard to change things, so instead, we continue to try to live into the previous generation’s successes, even though the same successes cannot be accomplished in the current culture.  It’s like living your grandparents’ dream.

One of my favorite quotes from this semester sums it up: 

“Polity is a living process because the church is a living, continuous, yet ever-changing community. One generation’s verities are the next generation’s straitjacket.”  - Frank Thomas, Polity, Practice, and the Mission of the United Methodist Church

I have no solution to this situation.  I only suggest that if our denominations want to go into an even deeper level of conversation about renewal, they need to talk about vision and mission AND polity.  And honestly, I think this is the fun stuff.  Creating church together.  Constructing it together.  What if church organization looked more like an artistic expression--community art--instead of a business?